RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2013-TT2 BY US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION v. LLOYD et al

Filing 74

ORDER ON DEFENDANT JOANE K. LLOYD'S MOTION TO STAY - denying 60 Motion to Stay. By JUDGE D. BROCK HORNBY. (mnw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE LOAN
TRUST 2013-TT2, BY U.S. BANK
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
PLAINTIFF
V.

JOANE K. LLOYD,

ET AL.,

DEFENDANTS
GLENNIS J. LLOYD,
BIW FIVE COUNTY CREDIT UNION,
DJM, LLC,
SNOWFLAKE HOLDINGS F/K/A
DOWNEAST ENERGY,
PARTIES-IN-INTEREST

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL NO. 2:15-CV-466-DBH

ORDER ON DEFENDANT JOANE K. LLOYD’S MOTION TO STAY
In this residential foreclosure case where diversity of citizenship furnishes
federal jurisdiction, I ruled previously that I must exercise that jurisdiction. I
therefore denied the defendant mortgagor’s motion to dismiss that invoked
Burford abstention. Decision & Order on Def. Joane K. Llloyd’s Mot. to Dismiss
on Abstention Grounds and Request for Judicial Notice at 14 (ECF No. 57);
Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U.S. 315 (1943). Now the same defendant mortgagor
has filed a motion to stay this federal lawsuit, stating:
The court should issue an order staying proceedings in this
case, with instructions to the Plaintiff [mortgagee] to file an
action in the Maine state court system in which Defendant

Lloyd may request and receive the foreclosure mediation
process provided for by Maine law. Such order of this court
may be conditioned upon Defendant’s Lloyd’s agreement or
stipulation that she will stipulate to the dismissal, without
prejudice and without costs, of the state court proceeding
that Plaintiff will be required to commence. Upon the
completion of that mediation process and the issuance of a
final mediation report, Plaintiff can file that report with this
court, and the requested stay can be lifted.

Def. Joane K. Lloyd’s Mot. to Stay at 2 (ECF No. 60).
I find it unnecessary to parse the classic Supreme Court cases like Erie,
Guaranty Trust, Hanna v. Plumer, and, most recently, Shady Grove, where the
Supreme Court has directed that state substantive law principles generally apply
in diversity cases in federal courts but that when the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure answer the question in dispute, they control against differing state
rules (unless those federal rules are beyond the scope of the Rules Enabling Act
or otherwise unconstitutional). See Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938);
Guaranty Trust Co. of N.Y. v. York, 326 U.S. 99 (1945); Hanna v. Plumer, 380
U.S. 460 (1965); Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates, P.A. v. Allstate Ins. Co.,
559 U.S. 393 (2010); see also Godin v. Schenks, 629 F.3d 79, 85-87 (1st Cir.
2010). The very wording of the relief requested by the defendant mortgagor
reveals that this motion attempts an end run around the Burford abstention
denial and attempts to avoid how Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 governs
pretrial proceedings, case management, and settlement in federal court.1 The
conflict here with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governing pretrial
proceedings in federal court cannot seriously be questioned when the defendant

See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 (“These rules govern the procedure in all civil actions and proceedings
in the United States district courts, except as stated in Rule 81.”).
1

2

wants me to order the plaintiff to file a state lawsuit. (There is no assurance that
Maine’s judiciary would even countenance this attempt to engage its state
mediation program in federal court proceedings or that the Superior Court would
follow an order of this court and allow dismissal of the plaintiff’s case without
prejudice.)
As I stated in my earlier ruling, much as I respect the expertise of the
Maine judiciary in carrying out Maine’s Foreclosure Diversion Program, Maine
has designed its requirements as part of judicial foreclosure.2 I will steadfastly
apply the substantive law that the Maine Law Court and the Maine Legislature
have mandated. Here, however, the plaintiff mortgagee exercised its statutory
and constitutional right to proceed in a federal forum based on diversity of
citizenship, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern the procedures for
conducting a lawsuit in this federal court.
The defendant Joane K. Lloyd’s motion to stay is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
DATED THIS 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2016
/S/D. BROCK HORNBY
D. BROCK HORNBY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

It is therefore unlike Daigle v. Me. Med. Ctr., Inc., 14 F.3d 684 (1st Cir. 1994), where the Maine
Legislature designed a mandatory pre-screening mechanism for medical malpractice claims
before any lawsuit could be filed, and the First Circuit held that a federal plaintiff must go
through that process before filing a federal lawsuit, id. at 689.
2

3